If you don’t care about administrating your computer and just want to use some software on some hardware, the BSDs are not that great. But if you do, the experience is better on the BSD land because cohesiveness reduces cognitive debt.

Also I wouldn’t make hardware support an OS quality metric. Linux get by with NDA and with direct contributions from the vendors. Which is something the BSDs don’t want/don’t benefit from.

▲ stackghost an hour ago | parent | next [-]

>If you don’t care about administrating your computer and just want to use some software on some hardware, the BSDs are not that great.

Yes this is my opinion also. BSD seems more suited to people for whom fiddling with the OS itself is the point, rather than the OS being a tool to get other things done.

I fall firmly into the latter camp. I'd rather chew glass than manually set flags in rc.conf

	▲	skydhash an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I like the word tune rather than fiddle. The BSD are very stable. You adjust some configuration, and then updates without having to change your tools or your config with every release. The config are not provided out of the box but the manuals can be very informative. A lot of current GNU/Linux complexity have no benefits for most users and may be an hindrance when they want to slightly alter their use cases. `sudo -> doas systemd -> rcctl nftable -> pf iproute2\|netplan -> ifconfig\|route alsa\|pulseaudio\|pipewire -> sndiod cgroups\|podman\|lxc -> jails(freebsd)` The first column may have valid use cases, but I strongly doubt those cases include casual usage. Simple tools that work well is better than complex tools that solves everything. Openbsd does not like containers or being a vm host

▲ Hasslequest 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]